ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: We performed a shamcontrolled, randomized prospective trial in men with ED using an electrohydraulic shockwave device FDA cleared for connective tissue activation and improved blood flow. METHOD(S): This single-blind study was performed in men with ED naive to acoustic wave and shockwave therapy. Patients were randomized to treatment and assigned to active low intensity shockwave therapy (LiSWT) (4 Hz, 0.12 mJ/mm2) or sham treatment, 2:1. Arm 1 consisted of 3 treatments of 5000 shocks every 3 weeks. Arm 2 consisted of 5000, 3000, and 3000 shocks during weeks 1, 2, and 3, respectively, followed by an identical cycle of treatment 3 weeks later. Doppler ultrasound and grayscale imaging with a 15.4 MHz probe were performed under pharmacologic erection at weeks 20 and 32. Subjects completing sham treatment were unblinded and crossed over to the opposite arm for active treatment. Post-treatment end diastolic velocity (EDV) and peak systolic velocity (PSV) were measured, and visual grading scores were used to assess extent of hypoechoic regions in the corpora cavernosa. Data were analyzed by 2-way repeated measures ANOVA with Geisser-Greenhouse correction. Pairwise comparisons were performed to baseline used Dunnett's multiple comparison test. Missing data were imputed by "last observation carried forward". RESULT(S): Although powered for 60, recruitment was limited due to COVID and 36 subjects (22 active, 14 sham) were randomized. Sham treatments showed no significant changes in outcome measures. The number of subjects with improved visual grading scores in the proximal region was consistently higher in active LiSWT vs sham (Arm 1=88.9% vs. 11.1%;Arm 2=40.0% vs. 20.0%, respectively) with statistical significance in Arm 1 at weeks 20 (p=0.005) and 32 (p=0.001). Sham subjects rolled over to active LiSWT also had improved grayscale ratings (Arm 1=33.3% vs. 11.1%;Arm 2=40.0% vs. 20.0%). After LiSWT, greater numbers of patients had higher PSV, lower EDV, or no worsening of blood flow parameters relative to baseline. Decrease in EDV was statistically significant in active treatment Arm 2 at Week 32 (p=0.003). Mean IIEF-EF scores were nominally higher in subjects in active treatment who had improved visual grading scores vs those with no improvement. Adverse events were transient. CONCLUSION(S): Flaccid penile LiSWT appears to be safe and efficacious for treating ED based on statistically significant changes from baseline between sham and active treatments in primary outcome measures.
ABSTRACT
Background Generally, the diagnosis of OCD can be considered after a history of exposure to the suspected material and a thorough physical examination. Meanwhile, vital information about it is often overlooked during the initial consultation. Objective Evaluating the epidemiological profile of OCD cases in health workers due to the COVID-19 pandemic and evaluating complaints, manifestations and causative materials of OCD cases in health workers at the isolation ward of Dr. Soetomo Surabaya Hospital during the Covid-19 pandemic. Methods Purposive sampling was used to design research samples from accessible populations that matched the inclusion requirements while those who met exclusion criteria were included as research samples. Results Majority OCD patients are women and the most common age range is between 22-35 years old. The occupation most affected by OCD while working at isolation ward during the pandemic is nurses. The most common complaint is itching followed by redness of the skin which appears most frequently on the hands. The most prominent clinical manifestations are desquamation followed by erythema-like skin lesions. Medical gloves are the sort of personal protection equipment that causes OCD the most, followed by hand hygiene activities. High risk factors for OCD include a family history of atopic illnesses, history of asthma and an early history of atopic dermatitis. Conclusion The use of PPE can cause several effects on the skin such as physical trauma to the skin, acne, contact dermatitis, urticaria, and aggravate previous skin diseases. The most common skin disorders are erythema, papules, scales, fissures, erosions, ulcers, vesicles and wheals. Complaints of contact dermatitis can be reduced and prevented by taking preventive measures in the form of using moisturizers on areas that are often exposed. Copyright © 2023 Pakistan Association of Dermatologists. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: The Covid-19 pandemic forced changes to care pathways. We have analysed the difference in provision of care to patients presenting with ureteric colic during the pandemic (PC) compared to a pre-pandemic cohort (PPC). Method: A list was generated of all CT KUB scans requested in the emergency department. Imaging and notes were reviewed to identify acute ureteric colic presentations in September to December 2019 and 2020. Statistical significance was calculated using either the Student T-test or Chi-squared test. Results: There were 92 patients in the PC, and 107 in the PPC. Primary treatment was provided for more patients during the pandemic (25% vs 10%, p<0.05), mainly by extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWL, 21% vs 7%, p<0.05). The rate of conservative management (64% vs 76%, p>0.05), temporising stent (11% vs 14%, p>0.05), and nephrostomy insertion (1% vs 1%, p>0.05) was similar in PC and PPC. The PC had a shorter time to intervention (17 vs 39 days, p<0.05), to ESWL (4 vs 12 days, p>0.05), to ureteroscopy (35 vs 45 days, p>0.05), and to stone passage confirmation (44 vs 91 days, p<0.05) respectively. There was no follow up for 15% and 30% respectively (p<0.05). Conclusion: During the pandemic, a reduction in electives created capacity for urgent interventions, (21% vs 7% ESWL, 4 vs 12 waiting days). Accordingly, the stone passage confirmation time was more than halved (44 vs 91 days). In accordance with recommendations from NICE, TISU and GIRFT, this demonstrates the importance of ringfencing ESWL, particularly as we emerge from the pandemic.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has changed many care pathways. We have analysed the treatment of patients with ureteric colic during the pandemic compared to an equivalent period before it began. Methods: Patients with acute ureteric colic were identified from acute CTKUBs requested in the emergency department from 1 September to 31 December 2020 ('pandemic cohort') and compared to the same timeframe in 2019 ('pre-pandemic cohort'), supplemented by clinical notes review. Results: There were 92 patients in the pandemic cohort, and 107 in the pre-pandemic cohort. Full results are detailed in Table 4. The rates of conservative management (64% vs 76%), temporising stent insertion (11% vs 14%) and emergency nephrostomy insertion (1% vs 1%) was similar in both cohorts (p > 0.05). However, more primary treatment was provided during the pandemic (25% vs 10%) mainly as extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWL, 21% vs 7%;p < 0.05). The pandemic cohort also had a shorter time to intervention (17 vs 39 days), driven by more rapid ESWL (4 vs 12 days) and to confirmation of stone passage (44 vs 91 days) (p < 0.05 for all three parameters), whereas the time to salvage ureteroscopy for failed conservative management was equivalent (35 vs 45 days, p > 0.05). Fifteen percent of the pandemic and 30% of the prepandemic cohort were lost to follow-up (p < 0.05). Conclusion: During COVID, reduced elective activity, particularly ESWL for renal stones, created capacity for urgent intervention such that the proportion of patients who had acute ESWL tripled (21% vs 7%) and were treated in one-third of the time (4 vs 12 days). Accordingly, the time to confirmation of stone passage was more than halved during the pandemic (44 vs 91 days). In accordance with recommendations from NICE, TISU, and GIRFT, these data confirm the importance of ringfencing urgent ESWL slots as we emerge from the pandemic.
ABSTRACT
Introduction & Objectives: In the last two decades, several therapeutic schemes have been proposed for erectile rehabilitation (ER) after radical prostatectomy (RP), but none has been standardized or validated due to the lack of high-level evidence in the Literature. We performed an international Survey focused on the current worldwide approach to ER, highlighting the contact and divergent aspects. Materials & Methods: We purposed an online Survey between July and December 2020 using email lists and Twitter, aiming to evaluate the ER protocols after RP performed by urologists and andrologists in daily practice. The following sections were investigated: 1) Demographics;2) Number and type of RP performed;3) Type and schedule, timing and duration of ER erectile programs;4) Standard treatment protocol. The specialists were contacted with the support of Confederación Americana de Urología (CAU), Urological SOcial MEdia (UroSoMe) Working Group, Functional Urology- Techno Urology- Research (FUTURe) Group and by a dedicated uro-andrologists spaces on Twitter platform of iTRUE Group. Results: The Survey was completed by 518 responders from 52 worldwide countries. The main criteria to candidate patients for ER were nerve sparing surgery (72.8%), lack of significant comorbidities (66.4%), patient’s request (55.4%), valid pre-operative EF (55%), age (48.1%), and partner’s willing (19.1%). Surgical techniques reported were: 38.9% open RP, 22.9% video laparoscopic RP, 38.2% robot- assisted RP. There were no significant differences (p>0.05) among the main surgical techniques and the time of EF recovery beginning, protocol and duration. The use of specific ER protocols was reported by 61.4%. The beginning of ER was reported by 33% of responders at catheter removal, after one month from surgery by 22%, and before RP by 15%. PDE5i were more frequently used as first line treatment (99.4%). Tadalafil 20 mg was the most prescribed in monotherapy, prescribed daily (48.2%) or 2-3 times/week (46%). PGE1 intra-cavernosal injection (67.9%) was the second more common prescription in monotherapy, followed by the association of PDE5i and vacuum device (29.6%). A minority of specialists 44/518 (8.5%) recommended low intensity shock wave therapy, while 63/518 (12.2%) proposed this in association to other therapies. The duration of ER was: in 16.2% <6 months, in 39% between 6 and 11 months;in 31.9% between 12 and 18 months;in 9.2% between 19-24 months, and in 3.7% >24 months. In case of first-line failure, the majority of the responders shifted to another treatment after at least 3 months (71%). During COVID-19 outbreak, the 37.4% of responders did not perform EF recovery consultations, while 26.8% had normal consultations, and 35.7% used telemedicine. Conclusions: This Survey showed an inhomogeneous approach to ER, reflecting the lack of high-level evidence on this topic. A worldwide accepted guideline on ER is therefore needed.